Romney Talks international policy.

[saxitoxin]

That said, I do understand why Player is too scared to fully criticize Obama's foreign policy. The last U.S. citizen - Colorado resident Anwar al-Awlaki - who publicly criticized Obama's foreign policy was executed without trial by public burning, via targeted Hellfire missile strike.



His 15 year old son was also burned alive to send a message to other potential critics. Seems like the message was received.

[thegreekdog]

Republican rhetoric aside, what makes you think Obama would have a different reaction?

He has a much better understanding of the world around, but he is still very much beholden to the same power structure.

I heard an interesting analysis by the author of a recent biography on Eisenhower. He talked about how good a poker player Eisnhower was and how critical that was in his relations with Russia in the cold war. When it comes to Obama, though, he stated things have changed. Eisenhower was able to bluff (if it was a bluff... something no one really knows) because the players were more limited and so much was unknown. Now, Obama just does not have the same table. The game itself has changed. His closing comment was that he hoped Obama had a lot of good advisors and questioners.. people who would genuinely question and challenge him, people with whom he could truly discuss things.

Today, it almost doesn't matter what the president really thinks and wants, he is far more bound in by corporate interests, and the international players are multiple.

I would like to see someone better than Obama be president... but right now, we have 2 realistic options. Obama is the better one.

You haven't indicated at all why you think Obama wouldn't do the same things as Romney proposes to do. I mean, seriously, go read some of Obama's plans on foreign affairs. We'll certainly have a better flavor after the "foreign affairs" debate, but one need only look at what the president has done these past four years to understand that he is no different than Bush. I'm not a Romney supporter, I'm just trying to make sure you are adequately informed that there is no difference between the foreign relations positions of either major party presidential candidate. You can pretend there is to make you feel better about voting for President Obama, but please don't criticize Romney for saying the same stuff Obama has been doing. This treatment of Obama as some great diplomat is ridiculous.

[saxitoxin]

Philip Giraldi was a foreign policy advisor to Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. He has a Ph.D. in History from the University of London, speaks six languages fluently, spent 20 years as a clandestine officer for the CIA in the Middle East, is a veteran of the U.S. Army, and is a columnist for The American Conservative. This week he penned a column on antiwar.com originally titled (since renamed) "Why I Hate Israel."

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/201 ... ke-israel/

excerpted ...

Why I Hate Israel
Philip Giraldi

But even the existence of good upstanding Israelis doesnt alter the fact that the governments that they have elected are essentially part of a long-running criminal enterprise judging by the serial convictions of former presidents and prime ministers. Most recently, former President Moshe Katsav was convictedof rape, while almost every recent head of government, including the current one, has been investigatedfor corruption. Further, the Israeli government is a rogue regime by most international standards, engaging as it does in torture, arbitrary imprisonment, and continued occupation of territories seized by its military. Worse still, it has successfully manipulated my country, the United States, and has done terrible damage both to our political system and to the American people, a crime that I just cannot forgive, condone, or explain away.

And then there are the reasons to dislike Israel and what it represents that go way back. In 1952s Lavon Affair, the Israelis were prepared to blow up a U.S. Information Center in Alexandria and blame it on the Egyptians. In 1967, the Israelis attacked and nearly sank the USSLiberty, killing 34 crewmen, and then used their power over President Lyndon Johnson to block an investigation into what had occurred. In 1987, Jonathan Pollard was convictedof spying for Israel with investigators determining that he had been the most damaging spy in the history of the United States. In the 1960s, Israelis stoleuranium from a lab in Pennsylvania to construct a secret nuclear arsenal. And the spying and theft of U.S. technology continues. Israel is the most active friendly nation when it comes to stealing U.S. secrets, and when its spies are caught, they are either sent home or, if they are Americans, receive a slap on the wrist.

And Israel gets away with killing American citizens literally in the cases of Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan of the Mavi Marmara. And lets not forget Israels treatment of the Palestinians which has made the United States complicit in a crime against humanity. Tel Aviv has also played a key role in Washingtons going to war against Iraq, in promulgating a U.S.-led global war on terror against the Muslim world, and in crying wolf over Iran, all of which have served no U.S. interest. Through it all, Congress and the media are oblivious to what is taking place. Israel is a net recipient of over $123 billion in U.S. aid and continues to get $3 billion a year even though its per capita income is higherthan that of Spain or Italy. No one questions anything having to do with Israel while Congress rubber-stamps resolution after resolution virtually promising to go to war on Israels behalf.

[PLAYER57832]

"I fully support the Hellfire missile strike Obama just personally ordered on my village - it's the price I'm willing to pay for residents of northeastern Ohio to get $38/per person annually in extra goodies from the US government! We have too many babies around here anyway, Obama is doing us a favor by killing some of them for us. Obama-Biden '08!"

Obama personally overseeing the drone war
Dennis C. Blair, director of national intelligence until he was fired in May 2010, said that discussions inside the White House of long-term strategy against Al Qaeda were sidelined by the intense focus on strikes. “The steady refrain in the White House was, ‘This is the only game in town’ — reminded me of body counts in Vietnam,” said Mr. Blair, a retired admiral who began his Navy service during that war.
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/20 ... -al-qaeda/

Yeah, we know.. but how would Romney do better?

If you had done the simple courtesy of reading my previous posts, you would have noted I said he would not have - therefore, it's morally indefensible to support a war criminal who buys your silence and loyalty with treats and goodies over a potential war criminal who won't, or visa versa. When you vote for Obama, you earn a number of days in hell equal to your percent of the vote multiplied by the number of babies he kills.

Gabriel will use the following equation to calculate your sentence in Hell:

X/Y x 1000/365 x p = ?

The U.S. isn't Australia, you still have the freedom not to make yourself an accessory to mass genocide. The only vote Obama deserves is a vote to convict him in The Hague of crimes against humanity before he's thrown in a dungeon for the rest of his life with his harlet wife.

Ralph Nader: “He’s gone beyond George W. Bush. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies, supposed suspects in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is a war crime and he ought to be held to account.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81649.html

No, we have 2 real choices. We vote for Obama and against Romney, or we vote for Romney against Obama.

not voting or voting for someone else is not some higher moral stance, it is simply letting everyone else make the decision for you... and removes your right to have any moral judgement over the winner or loser.

That said, simply voting does not end responsibility, either. Nor is this all about the president. We have more ability to actually influence the actions of lower officials individually. I can talk to most of my congresspeople. I cannot just walk in and talk to the president.

[BigBallinStalin]

The government goodies are strong with this one.

[Woodruff]

No, we have 2 real choices. We vote for Obama and against Romney, or we vote for Romney against Obama.

No, this is terrible, short-sighted logic. We have a number of choices outside of these two, with valid reasons for voting for them instead of either of these two.

not voting or voting for someone else is not some higher moral stance, it is simply letting everyone else make the decision for you... and removes your right to have any moral judgement over the winner or loser.

You've bought into the system, PLAYER. You're not vested, and you accept what the Repocrat Party tells you.

[PLAYER57832]

Republican rhetoric aside, what makes you think Obama would have a different reaction?

He has a much better understanding of the world around, but he is still very much beholden to the same power structure.

I heard an interesting analysis by the author of a recent biography on Eisenhower. He talked about how good a poker player Eisnhower was and how critical that was in his relations with Russia in the cold war. When it comes to Obama, though, he stated things have changed. Eisenhower was able to bluff (if it was a bluff... something no one really knows) because the players were more limited and so much was unknown. Now, Obama just does not have the same table. The game itself has changed. His closing comment was that he hoped Obama had a lot of good advisors and questioners.. people who would genuinely question and challenge him, people with whom he could truly discuss things.

Today, it almost doesn't matter what the president really thinks and wants, he is far more bound in by corporate interests, and the international players are multiple.

I would like to see someone better than Obama be president... but right now, we have 2 realistic options. Obama is the better one.

You haven't indicated at all why you think Obama wouldn't do the same things as Romney proposes to do. I mean, seriously, go read some of Obama's plans on foreign affairs. We'll certainly have a better flavor after the "foreign affairs" debate, but one need only look at what the president has done these past four years to understand that he is no different than Bush. I'm not a Romney supporter, I'm just trying to make sure you are adequately informed that there is no difference between the foreign relations positions of either major party presidential candidate. You can pretend there is to make you feel better about voting for President Obama, but please don't criticize Romney for saying the same stuff Obama has been doing. This treatment of Obama as some great diplomat is ridiculous.

I don't think Obama is better than Bush on international relations. Romney, however, has had a record of making what are more than just gaffs.. that are more like just not bothering to want to understand situations. What spurred me to make this thread was his declaration that we would go to war for "our friends"... combined with other things he has said, it is pretty clear the only friend he refers to is Israel. I find the idea of going to war because Israel wants us to do so pretty frightening. It is always a looming possibility, but Romney's declarations were much more worrisome than what Obama has said.

Further, Romney has gone back and forth a LOT on what he said.. big issues, but I will only talk about his foreign policy here. For example, he is now crticizing Obama for not getting involved in Syria, for his actions regarding Iran. Yet, when nailed down, he backs off or reverses. Its not just that he changes his mind after finding out new information, its that he tries to claim he never had the other position at all. I can fully respect that people's ideas change, particularly leaders. I can respect compromise is necessary. I cannot respect someone who one day supports A and the next is for C... and denies ever having said A or B.

Note.. in Obama's case, we are worried about some things he has not said, aka "covert" stuff, drones, etc... but that is sort of part of being president. I don't think Romney would do that differently... if anything, he would be less open.

[PLAYER57832]

No, we have 2 real choices. We vote for Obama and against Romney, or we vote for Romney against Obama.

No, this is terrible, short-sighted logic. We have a number of choices outside of these two, with valid reasons for voting for them instead of either of these two.

Not to become president, no we do not.. not at this point.

I am NOT saying we shouldn't work for other parties, try to get other parties to have a bigger voice, but denying that we have a 2 party system, at least at the presidential level, today is just to deny reality. It serves no purpose.

A poster on your lawn is a "statement". A T-shirt can be a statement. A vote for president is a vote for president, not a statement, not a full-fledged endorsement (no matter how much soem try to make that claim).

not voting or voting for someone else is not some higher moral stance, it is simply letting everyone else make the decision for you... and removes your right to have any moral judgement over the winner or loser.

You've bought into the system, PLAYER. You're not vested, and you accept what the Repocrat Party tells you.

LOL... I don't even participate in the Democratic party, outside of sometimes registering Democratic (I believe I have said previously that I register based on the primary I want to vote in), have not even read the Democratic party platform recently (I DO read the candidate's platforms). I consider it garbage. Nope, I get my sources of information elsewhere. Sometimes, I even listen to Republicans (joke, but also true.. I listen to as many sides as possible)

Nope, when it comes to the presidential vote, we have 2 choices. Any other vote is no different than just not voting, not participating at all. It means you just let everyone else decide. If you truly don't care, that might be best. I see Obama as a bit less of an evil. I see the Green Party as the closest we have to "good", but they are not even running a candidate in this election, not really.

[saxitoxin]

Nope, when it comes to the presidential vote, we have 2 choices.

"I would rather vote for something I want and not get it, than vote for something I don't want and get it." - Eugene Debbs

Player is bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex. The machine has propped up their corporate candidates, Obama and Romney, and ordered one to threaten to withhold an increasingly dwindling allocation of treats and goodies from Player. The idea of leftover slop from the gravy train trickling down is most important to Player so she remains silent while the genocide proceeds with increasing frenzy. As society becomes less and less educated, more and more intellectually dull, this trick will get easier to pull.


Hashmet Affendi, age 9 - Obama Victim #2,118

[PLAYER57832]

Go ahead and vote for Romney, then.....because voting for anyone BUT Obama will be just that.

The time to have brought forward another real candidate is past.

[BigBallinStalin]

Nope, when it comes to the presidential vote, we have 2 choices.

"I would rather vote for something I want and not get it, than vote for something I don't want and get it." - Eugene Debbs

Player is bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex. The machine has propped up their corporate candidates, Obama and Romney, and ordered one to threaten to withhold an increasingly dwindling allocation of treats and goodies from Player. The idea of leftover slop from the gravy train trickling down is most important to Player so she remains silent while the genocide proceeds with increasing frenzy. As society becomes less and less educated, more and more intellectually dull, this trick will get easier to pull.


Hashmet Affendi, age 9 - Obama Victim #2,118

That child is too young to vote. This is why Voter ID Laws should be enforced everywhere in the United States.

[BigBallinStalin]

Go ahead and vote for Romney, then.....because voting for anyone BUT Obama will be just that.

The time to have brought forward another real candidate is past.

You've got some gravy on your chin.

[Woodruff]

No, we have 2 real choices. We vote for Obama and against Romney, or we vote for Romney against Obama.

No, this is terrible, short-sighted logic. We have a number of choices outside of these two, with valid reasons for voting for them instead
of either of these two.

Not to become president, no we do not.. not at this point.

Your vote is your choice. You are self-limiting. What a sad perspective.

I am NOT saying we shouldn't work for other parties, try to get other parties to have a bigger voice, but denying that we have a 2 party system, at least at the presidential level, today is just to deny reality. It serves no purpose.

The way those other parties "get to have a bigger voice" is through money. Your vote could make a difference in their getting that money they need to compete with the Repocrat machine. You are ACTIVELY WORKING AGAINST those other parties by voting for either Obama or Romney. You're certainly not working for them.

A poster on your lawn is a "statement". A T-shirt can be a statement. A vote for president is a vote for president, not a statement, not a full-fledged endorsement (no matter how much soem try to make that claim).

Statement? I'm talking about cold, hard cash, PLAYER. You're literally taking money away from a third party option by voting for Obama or Romney.

not voting or voting for someone else is not some higher moral stance, it is simply letting everyone else make the decision for you... and removes your right to have any moral judgement over the winner or loser.

You've bought into the system, PLAYER. You're not vested, and you accept what the Repocrat Party tells you.

LOL... I don't even participate in the Democratic party, outside of sometimes registering Democratic (I believe I have said previously that I register based on the primary I want to vote in), have not even read the Democratic party platform recently (I DO read the candidate's platforms). I consider it garbage. Nope, I get my sources of information elsewhere. Sometimes, I even listen to Republicans (joke, but also true.. I listen to as many sides as possible)

Thoroughly irrelevant to my point.

Nope, when it comes to the presidential vote, we have 2 choices. Any other vote is no different than just not voting, not participating at all. It means you just let everyone else decide.

Nope, I reject those statements as utterly false. Not just false, but in my opinion absolutely distracting from the reality. Like I said, you've bought into the system. You like to pretend that you are a free thinker, but you're just another drone in the brickyard...another brick in the wall.

If you truly don't care, that might be best. I see Obama as a bit less of an evil. I see the Green Party as the closest we have to "good", but they are not even running a candidate in this election, not really.

False. Not even remotely close to factual, in fact. I am going to even accuse you of intentionally misleading with suspicion of intentionally lying. In fact, I will be voting for the Green Party candidate (Jill Stein, you may recognize the name, as I've mentioned her to you in this very thread). A fascinating thing for a party who is "not even running a candidate in this election".

[Woodruff]

Go ahead and vote for Romney, then.....because voting for anyone BUT Obama will be just that.

The time to have brought forward another real candidate is past.

As I've told Phatscotty, you're simply voting based on your fear. You are Phatscotty.

[PLAYER57832]

Go ahead and vote for Romney, then.....because voting for anyone BUT Obama will be just that.

The time to have brought forward another real candidate is past.

As I've told Phatscotty, you're simply voting based on your fear. You are Phatscotty.

A wise person knows when taking a stand will accomplish something and when it won't. Trying to claim that saying there are only 2 viable candidates equates me to Phattscotty is pretty sad argument.

[PLAYER57832]

A poster on your lawn is a "statement". A T-shirt can be a statement. A vote for president is a vote for president, not a statement, not a full-fledged endorsement (no matter how much soem try to make that claim).

Statement? I'm talking about cold, hard cash, PLAYER. You're literally taking money away from a third party option by voting for Obama or Romney.

There IS no third party option right now, not at the presidential level. We have a LONG way to go before there will be. And no, my vote doesn't take money from third parties.

Nope, when it comes to the presidential vote, we have 2 choices. Any other vote is no different than just not voting, not participating at all. It means you just let everyone else decide.

Nope, I reject those statements as utterly false. Not just false, but in my opinion absolutely distracting from the reality. Like I said, you've bought into the system. You like to pretend that you are a free thinker, but you're just another drone in the brickyard...another brick in the wall.

If we were talking at some other point than just a few weeks prior to the current election, perhaps.

If you truly don't care, that might be best. I see Obama as a bit less of an evil. I see the Green Party as the closest we have to "good", but they are not even running a candidate in this election, not really.

False. Not even remotely close to factual, in fact. I am going to even accuse you of intentionally misleading with suspicion of intentionally lying. In fact, I will be voting for the Green Party candidate (Jill Stein, you may recognize the name, as I've mentioned her to you in this very thread). A fascinating thing for a party who is "not even running a candidate in this election".

Actually, the green party officially doesn't suggest people vote for them..... yet. That was what I meant. Also, they don't have sufficient support to even appear on many ballots. The Fighting to make that happen is effective. Wishing for an eleventh hour victory.. or thinking it is seriously possible given what so many people now believe, isn't.

You can believe what you wish. If you honestly don't care which of the 2 will win, then fine. Else... a vote for Jill Stein is effectively 2 votes for Romney, becuase almost all Stein supporters would else vote for Obama.

[Woodruff]

Go ahead and vote for Romney, then.....because voting for anyone BUT Obama will be just that.

The time to have brought forward another real candidate is past.

As I've told Phatscotty, you're simply voting based on your fear. You are Phatscotty.

A wise person knows when taking a stand will accomplish something and when it won't.

You don't believe that significantly increased funding to the Green Party's campaigns won't accomplish something? Wow.

Trying to claim that saying there are only 2 viable candidates equates me to Phattscotty is pretty sad argument.

Except that it's exactly what Phatscotty is saying. It does equate you two.

[PLAYER57832]

Go ahead and vote for Romney, then.....because voting for anyone BUT Obama will be just that.

The time to have brought forward another real candidate is past.

As I've told Phatscotty, you're simply voting based on your fear. You are Phatscotty.

A wise person knows when taking a stand will accomplish something and when it won't.

You don't believe that significantly increased funding to the Green Party's campaigns won't accomplish something? Wow.

I don't believe my vote for Stein will effect that change or any other. The Green party has too far to go. Like I said, you might check on what the green party itself advises.

Trying to claim that saying there are only 2 viable candidates equates me to Phattscotty is pretty sad argument.

Except that it's exactly what Phatscotty is saying. It does equate you two.

That's because its a pretty plain fact. I mean, I suspect he will agree that that the Earth orbits the sun, too. In fact, you probably do as well. By your logic, you are equal to Phattscotty as well.

[Woodruff]

A poster on your lawn is a "statement". A T-shirt can be a statement. A vote for president is a vote for president, not a statement, not a full-fledged endorsement (no matter how much soem try to make that claim).

Statement? I'm talking about cold, hard cash, PLAYER. You're literally taking money away from a third party option by voting for Obama or Romney.

There IS no third party option right now, not at the presidential level. We have a LONG way to go before there will be. And no, my vote doesn't take money from third parties.

It absolutely does, and it's people with the horridly limited perspective that you're using that ARE THE REASON WHY we're not going to have a third party option in the future. You are the liberal Phatscotty.

Nope, when it comes to the presidential vote, we have 2 choices. Any other vote is no different than just not voting, not participating at all. It means you just let everyone else decide.

Nope, I reject those statements as utterly false. Not just false, but in my opinion absolutely distracting from the reality. Like I said, you've bought into the system. You like to pretend that you are a free thinker, but you're just another drone in the brickyard...another brick in the wall.

If we were talking at some other point than just a few weeks prior to the current election, perhaps.[/quote]

That's when you vote, PLAYER. I'm talking about votes. Your statement of your vote is precisely what I'm referring to.

If you truly don't care, that might be best. I see Obama as a bit less of an evil. I see the Green Party as the closest we have to "good", but they are not even running a candidate in this election, not really.

False. Not even remotely close to factual, in fact. I am going to even accuse you of intentionally misleading with suspicion of intentionally lying. In fact, I will be voting for the Green Party candidate (Jill Stein, you may recognize the name, as I've mentioned her to you in this very thread). A fascinating thing for a party who is "not even running a candidate in this election".

Actually, the green party officially doesn't suggest people vote for them..... yet.

100% false. I just checked the Green Party's website both nationally and the local one here in Nebraska. Both are asking for votes NOW. In fact, I find it absolutely ludicrous that you would even suggest such a stupid thing.

That was what I meant. Also, they don't have sufficient support to even appear on many ballots.

Until people like you find a backbone, they may never get on all of the ballots. But they are on the ballots in a lot of states. Yet they don't have to appear on a ballot to receive a vote.

The Fighting to make that happen is effective. Wishing for an eleventh hour victory.. or thinking it is seriously possible given what so many people now believe, isn't.

Cutting their throat yourself sure isn't helping them.

You can believe what you wish. If you honestly don't care which of the 2 will win, then fine. Else... a vote for Jill Stein is effectively 2 votes for Romney, becuase almost all Stein supporters would else vote for Obama.

That is a seriously stupid statement that is borne out of fear. Stop voting for your fear. Start voting for what you WANT. I really don't understand how someone who appears to be educated can willingly throw their vote for SOMEONE THEY DON'T REALLY WANT.

[Woodruff]

Go ahead and vote for Romney, then.....because voting for anyone BUT Obama will be just that.

The time to have brought forward another real candidate is past.

As I've told Phatscotty, you're simply voting based on your fear. You are Phatscotty.

A wise person knows when taking a stand will accomplish something and when it won't.

You don't believe that significantly increased funding to the Green Party's campaigns won't accomplish something? Wow.

I don't believe my vote for Stein will effect that change or any other. The Green party has too far to go.

You sound exactly like the idiots that say "My one vote won't matter - the election will be decided by more than one vote.". That's a loser stance. That's a give-up stance. It's pathetic. You're effectively stealing money from the Green Party, the party you allegedly prefer.

Like I said, you might check on what the green party itself advises.

I'm personally very involved with the Green Party. You're sadly mistaken.

Trying to claim that saying there are only 2 viable candidates equates me to Phattscotty is pretty sad argument.

Except that it's exactly what Phatscotty is saying. It does equate you two.

That's because its a pretty plain fact. I mean, I suspect he will agree that that the Earth orbits the sun, too. In fact, you probably do as well. By your logic, you are equal to Phattscotty as well.

Thanks, Phatscotty.

[PLAYER57832]

You're effectively stealing money from the Green Party, the party you allegedly prefer.

How.

Like I said, you might check on what the green party itself advises.

I'm personally very involved with the Green Party. You're sadly mistaken.

I just did. They have apparently decided to go foward and fight. Last year, they did up until shortly before the election, then they suggested everyone vote for Obama. Whether they will do that this year or not, I am not sure. I know it is a contentious issue within the party. I happen to think it is too soon.

[Woodruff]

You're effectively stealing money from the Green Party, the party you allegedly prefer.

How.

By hurting their opportunity to receive significant funding for their future campaigns.

Like I said, you might check on what the green party itself advises.

I'm personally very involved with the Green Party. You're sadly mistaken.

I just did. They have apparently decided to go foward and fight. Last year, they did up until shortly before the election, then they suggested everyone vote for Obama. Whether they will do that this year or not, I am not sure. I know it is a contentious issue within the party. I happen to think it is too soon.

Read this article dated September 26th. It speaks DIRECTLY to your fear and the incredible mistake you are making:
http://www.jillstein.org/only_wasted_vote

While some partisan Democrats are once again claiming that a vote for the Greens is a vote for the Republicans, that argument falls flat with millions of disenfranchised voters who believe we can do better.

[GreecePwns]

C'mon guys, its 5 percent of the vote were talking about for federal funding of the party. Player deserves all the "Obama war machine giving you goodies for votes" hate for her posts here.

Was it Nader's fault Gore lost as well, Player? Should he have bowed out of the race before or after being sued by the Democratic party?

[saxitoxin]

Go ahead and vote for Romney, then.....because voting for anyone BUT Obama will be just that.

The time to have brought forward another real candidate is past.

As I've told Phatscotty, you're simply voting based on your fear. You are Phatscotty.

A wise person knows when taking a stand will accomplish something and when it won't. Trying to claim that saying there are only 2 viable candidates equates me to Phattscotty is pretty sad argument.

Player, I don't mean to make this a personal slur, however, it's relevant to point out as you've made the issue so boldfaced that it's hard to ignore.

The only person here who has ever accused you of being a wise person is you. And you do it quite frequently. Nearly every post with which you fete us is bookended by rambling elocutions of your education and savvy media discernment and rabid denunciations of the intellect of everyone who disagrees with the party lines you so faithfully recite. This becomes intriguingly odd when juxtaposed against your creative use of the English language, frequent regurgitation from Chevron's National Petroleum Radio (NPR) and your backwoodsy personal anecdotes of homelife in Appalachia.

Anyway, just take this as a piece of gentle counsel: sometimes self-esteem can be a curse.

C'mon guys, its 5 percent of the vote were talking about for federal funding of the party. Player deserves all the "Obama war machine giving you goodies for votes" hate for her posts here.

Was it Nader's fault Gore lost as well, Player? Should he have bowed out of the race before or after being sued by the Democratic party?

An, as usual, excellent point by GP.

Relevant, too - I just read Nader has won the right to a jury trial in his own lawsuit against the Democrat National Committee on accusation of a civil conspiracy to disqualify him from as many ballot lines as possible. When Player says "we only have two real choices" that's the reason - an active plan to block other candidates from the ballot. But it takes more than the clipped 180-second infomercials from National Petroleum Radio to understand these nuances. Which is why Player is blissfully unaware of more complex storylines.

(Amusingly, the Republicans in Pennsylvania this year are using [almost] the same dirty tricks to keep Gary Johnson off the ballot that the Democrats used against Nader in 2004.)

[saxitoxin]

sorry, almost forgot ...

Taleel Hafed, age 12 - Obama victim 1,912 - ironically ObamaCare doesn't currently provide healthcare eligibility to ObamaTargets, who appear to need it most


"We can fight them now when we have little chance of winning, or fight them later when we have no chance at all." - Ralph Nader


"I'll do it later! YUM YUM YUM!" - Player57832